November 4, 2011

That's a hell of a headline. For an article by Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times. If the woman had been named, it could have read:

Jane Doe Said to Have Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be that "said to." So imagine if there had been direct evidence, and if could been:
Jane Doe Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be that "felt." So let's add another degree of solidity:

Jane Doe Subjected to Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be a lack of agency behind the hostility. If we knew who was sending out that hostility, it might have read:

Co-workers Subjected Jane Doe to Hostility After Her Complaining About Cain.

There'd still be correlation without necessary causation. Let's eliminate that for the purpose of further demonstrating the vagueness of it all:

Co-workers Subjected Jane Doe to Hostility Because of Her Complaining About Cain.

Even the article were bolstered with information that would support these 5 added degrees of specificity, the weakness of the story would remain: Which co-workers? What did they know about the complaint? What form did this hostility take? For how long? And the all-important: What connection did any of this have to something Cain actually did?

For it to be sexual harassment by Cain, doesn't Cain have to create the hostility or the hostile environment? I'm sure she is implying that Cain was the one being hostile, but the headline doesn't say that. Isn't it important to know who is creating the hostile work environment?

Also, this claim reminds me of a radio ad that I heard while vacating in Arizona about 10 years ago. The ad was by a law firm and it said something like--"If you are a woman and you have ever worked for a man, you have been sexually harassed. Call X Law Firm to find out more . . .."

Plus, a person can't necessarily be held responsible for the feelings of another person. Jut because you feel hostility doesn't mean there is any. The mentally ill, and lots of "normal" people, have feelings that have no foundation in reality.

"n.n said...Long after the details, or rather lack thereof, are forgotten, the perception will remain, and his reputation will be tarnished.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what they did to Palin.

In this case, either they have evidence to support their allegation, or they don't. They should, as they are purportedly individuals with integrity, step forward and make their positions known." Same thing they did to McCain...running a story about someone who said the heard it from someone that McCain had an affair.

The severance agreement was unusual not only for its size, three people familiar with it said, but also for its confidentiality provision.

Thank God the Times found an anonymous source--three of them, no less!--to opine on the severance agreement using language identical to all the left wing talking points on the matter. Otherwise this article would have to go in the op-ed section. This way, it's "news."

This "sexual harassment" stuff is such utter horseshit. I say that as a male subjected for nearly a year to the unwanted sexual advances of my female supervisor.

You deal with it. You move on.

You don't build another damned victim industry on the thing. Unless, or course, you're a lawyer.

Crying "sexual harassment" is nothing more or less than a power game -- quite common in cases where the woman's advances have been declined and she's attempting to get even.

Been going on since before Potiphar's wife. See Genesis 39 if you don't know the story.

There's a reason women were not welcomed on the job for so many generations ... not because they're incompetent, but because a depressing lot of them are so goddamned catty, vindictive, and manipulative.

However, even if "the women" in these stories were the editors' very own mamas and aunties and they were absolutely confident of the truth in these allegations, the stories printed still amount to journalistic malpractice.

Newspaper articles are supposed to state all relevant facts and identify the sources on which they are based.

The leftard reality distortion field has been set to warp factor eleventybillion. No proof, no evidence, no names, nothing and yet we are told that it was sexual harrassment. No wonder Cain is getting a bounce and donations because people see him getting screwed and they are telling politico and the media at large to go fuck themselves. However, the media attempt now is to forward this meme so it hounds Cain. I can already see the satirical spoofs already being videoed of Cain putting his hand beneath his chin and that being code for blowjob. Chapelle could pull it off and make it funny.

Althouse: While I certainly detest Herman Cain, I want to say that is one of the most brilliant takedowns of an ersatz headlines I have ever seen.

Deconstructionist abd structuralist criticism deservedly gets a bad rap a lot of the time, and one on the whole can be thankful they no longer dominates the academic humanities. But your treatment there shows the true value of reading against the grain.

Unlike the Clinton years, where any and every possible conspiracy theory was plausible and warranted relentless press inquiry - from murder to drug running - the Cain saga is just all so unknowable. It could be literally anything BUT sexual harrassment!

Unlike the Clinton years, where any and every possible conspiracy theory was plausible and warranted relentless press inquiry - from murder to drug running - the Cain saga is just all so unknowable. It could be literally anything BUT sexual harrassment!

Poor judgment in bringing up Clinton, garbage.

After all, he was involved in sex acts with an intern under his authority, who was also decades younger than him.

I'll repeat. When I was laid off from my last full time job six years ago, I was given a five figure payment and I signed a confidentiality agreement, agreeing among other things to say nothing negative about my employer.

My employer was concerned that I would file an age discrimination complaint or suit against it.

I had no intention of doing so, but I signed the agreement and took the payment.

I could now, if I chose, claim that that agreement represents some admission of wrong doing on the part of my ex-employer. But, it doesn't.

This story: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/45561 takes the statement from NOW regarding Clinton (and helpfully reminds us that he "ran his hand up her thigh, exposed himself to her, asked for oral sex and pointedly reminded her of his friendship with her immediate boss") and compares them to NOW's statements involving Cain.

Unbelievable. Sometimes I think that the thing that liberals call "feminism" is some kind of weird performance art.

If it credibly comes out that Cain: 1) ran his hand up an unwilling woman's thigh, 2) exposed himself to someone, 3) asked for oral sex from a co-worker who he wasn't in a relationship with, OR 4) pointedly reminded a woman of his friendship with her immediate boss in connection with this sort of behavior, I will certainly condemn it, and state that he should drop out.

People -- We have no idea who is lying. That's not the issue. The issue is this ridiculous double standard where people can cloak claims based on sexual harassment in anonymity.

It's ridiculous. It's not as if this person is alleging rape (and if she was, that still shouldn't be a shield). What's the very worst of the allegations? We don't even know. And it's bullshit.

By the way, if Cain did harass someone and there was a confidentiality agreement, he should sue this alleged victim. If , she has breached it by talking about what happened. He should take her house. He should ruin her life.

Unlike the Clinton years, where any and every possible conspiracy theory was plausible and warranted relentless press inquiry - from murder to drug running - the Cain saga is just all so unknowable. It could be literally anything BUT sexual harrassment!

How many years until the former rapist-in-chief's files are opened? 35? Can't wait!

$45K "unusual" for the settlement? In the late 1990's, I believe a top line senior Washington sex harassment defense lawyer would bill in the $350-$450/hour range. At that time I was a Partner in the DC office of a multi-office firm and our senior DC litigators were in that range.

To take a case through trial would run many times $45K, so it seems to me that a $45K settlement reflects a close to worthless claim.

As far as confidentiality in settlement agreements, that's the norm from my (limited) experience.

"even if then-Governor Bill Clinton propositioned and pawed then-state employee Paula Jones — certainly misconduct for any employer or supervisor, Jones does not have a valid harassment claim because she could not prove that the overall result was a hostile work environment."

The woman [and two other witnesses] alleged that Cain made a proposition - after they had all been drinking - that she leave with him. She said no. She made allegations and then felt hostility in the workplace afterwards.

What is so hard to understand about that?

If anything, it is sort of in Cain's favor because it shows that people in the workplace respected him and they felt she was [perhaps] overreacting.

If I were walking around the office knowing that at any time, some guy was going to feel me up, (expose himself to me, ask me for oral sex) and I wouldn't be able to say anything or I might lose my job, yeah, that sounds pretty darn hostile.

These things do occassionally happen, and they're a problem that sexual hassment laws and tort claims should solve. But they're rare, and should not be confused with cases where someone says something off-color (or something- we still have no idea!) and someone feels "uncomfortable." It's sad and hurts everyone (legitimate victims like Ms. Jones (and Kathleen Wiley, who should be a household name) as well as the potential victims of false accusations) when people abuse the system by crying wolf, and when people let them get away with it by paying them to keep quiet.

NOW is only an embarrassment to the women that buy into its BS, not women who can think for themselves.

It's embarrassing to me, as a woman, that people might for even a second confuse me with these women, or that people might think that they speak for me. It's further embarrassing that there are any women that would give up their sexual liberty (or worse, argue that others should) for a politician they agree with.

It's embarrassing to me, as a woman, that people might for even a second confuse me with these women, or that people might think that they speak for me. It's further embarrassing that there are any women that would give up their sexual liberty (or worse, argue that others should) for a politician they agree with.

So, lyssa, why do you find my attitude offensive?

You've admitted that sensible, decent feminism is just about a contradiction in terms.

I've raised two daughters, both of whom have M.A.s, professional careers and successful lives.

I'm confused that you can't see the reality of my life. Why does ideology seem so important to you?

You don't seem to be one of those people who think that proper ideology is more important than a good outcome in life.

It's okay for Clinton to come all over blue dresses and stick cigars up pussies in the Oval Office. It's okay for that fat, dead fuck Ted Kennedy to kill a woman. It's okay for John Edwards to father a bastard child with a campaign worker while his wife dies of cancer.

We'll look past all that shit. Right, Garage? But wholly unsubstantiated allegations of unspecified and vague sexual harassment by unnamed accusers against a Republican -- this we must take seriously. This is cause for alarm.

The leftist moral world is a sad, sorry joke. But fight the good fight. Kick ass, Matt and April. Kick ass. I bet you kick a lot of ass.

Tell us. When was the last ass you kicked? Tell us about that violent event.

Fuck the facts. Allie and Matt just want to kick some ass! That Obama is too nice to kick ass, though. If only Obama could just kick ass, that would change everything. There's be no discord then, just a bunch of kicked asses and Obama, triumphant.

Garage -- As I have said here and other places, the issue here isn't the truth the allegations. They could be true. The issues are:

1. Democrats get a pass for shit that is much worse for a long time. Sometimes, those Democrats are good and worthy politicians, like Clinton. Other times it's trashy ambulance chasers like John Edwards or someone like Jesse Jackson. That's wrong. There is an obvious pattern of agenda.

2. No one should be able to make allegations of any kind hiding being a veil of anonymity. It's one thing to try. It's another thing for the entire press to be acquiescent. Why aren't these people outed? Again, there's a pattern of agenda.

And so, dude, you are right but only the way a hypocrite is right. There are bigger issues lurking and the next time a leftist does the same thing, or there are such allegations, that leftist gets a pass. Will you endorse that?

It would be better if Obama was a shit-stomping ass kicker like you! You wouldn't stand for this petty politics and these stupid previously scheduled events. No fucking way. You'd get out there and force your will upon the world. You are the vanguard, dude. The vanguard of fucking kicking ass.

And if that means we have to hang some dirty kulaks by the lamp posts, well, that's part of ass kicking. Suck it up. Right, Matt?

He didn't extend the Bush tax cuts. He lost the 2010 election to the Tea Party, which left him no choice.

Yes, he accepted the Bush Doctrine in the war on terror. Only an idiot would have done otherwise.

Obama has consistently tried to stop oil, gas and coal development in the U.S. That's part of the reason so many people are out of work.

I don't know about EPA regulations. I know that he's tried to strangle the coal industry. In reality, he might be pulling back out of some sort of concession to political reality. Shutting down coal plants will only increase unemployment and start and inflationary spiral. Nonetheless, he supported the green scams until his legs were cut out from under him.

Yes, he certainly wants to raise taxes in every way imagineable, which is clearly the liberal platform.

All you're saying is that political and economic reality has constrained him from implementing a fully progressive program. In fact, what your saying is that he wants to be re-elected, and that he's pulling back from some of the most disastrous of his far left projects.

He's as liberal a president as will ever be elected. It's possible that the after shock of his failure will prevent a liberal president from every being elected again.

All you're saying is that political and economic reality has constrained him from implementing a fully progressive program.

Yes. This! Exactly!

Matt's response to Obama's failures to implement various parts of Obama's ridiculously ultra-liberal agenda is that Obama is too nice. No, you dumb ass. Obama failed to get enough votes in Congress and failed to convince the American people.

Matt's and April's response is that Obama just needs to kick ass -- which is what they would do. These people don't realize the utterly, totally fascist nature of their statements. When I call them on it with brilliant ridicule, they don't get it. This is because they are shallow and stupid.

But you keep on kicking ass, Matt. Stay tough, you big, bad motherfucker.

Matt's and April's response is that Obama just needs to kick ass -- which is what they would do. These people don't realize the utterly, totally fascist nature of their statements. When I call them on it with brilliant ridicule, they don't get it. This is because they are shallow and stupid.

Which elevates rationalizations that Obama is a moderate or that Obama is too nice from the sorry to the comical.

April and Matt would do...what exactly in the face of reality? They say they'd kick ass. This is, of course, a farce. They probably weigh 220 pounds collectively (unless one of them is a lard ass) and they've never been in a serious physical or political confrontation in their lives where the stakes are anything beyond what the appetizer should be.

But, in their deep, dark hearts, they are violent fascists. They don't respect democracy or constitutionalism. And this comes out in the metaphors they use.

Extends Bush tax cuts - Obama could easily have vetoed the bill. He has that ability for that bill.

Political reality or not if he was truly a [left] liberal he would not acquiesce the way he has.

And you can't have it two ways. You can't claim he is far left but then say the policies he has supported and bills he signed were not because he was forced by circumstances to vote with Republican. That is absurd. Especially because that is a royal double standard. If you keep signing bills over a three year period which belie your liberal base then you are not a liberal.

To call him the most liberal is laughable. LBJ's [social] policies were far more left as were FDRs.

Again, you are confusing some of the liberals who voted for him with the man himself. Look, I'm sure a bunch of far right goons will end up voting for Romney. But it won't make Romney far right. Romney and Obama are actually pretty darn close to each other. That Healthcare bill is their dual signature.

I very much hope we can get to the bottom of these allegations but first we are going to need to know what they are and who made them. Then we are going to have to subject the accusers to some scrutiny. One of them, still anonymous, "wants her normal life back" but it is probably too late for that. I am with those lefty commenters who thinks this needs some real looking into and i hope we do. I do so hope these women are not going to feel "uncomfortable" with what they are about to experience. The press will bat them around like cat toys.

Sexual harassment is not the dominant form of hostility in the workplace, religious test and political tests are.

That was so true at the late Borders that even customers began to take notice and drift away from the store; grateful for Amazon, Kindle, and iBooks.

Intimations of racism ended any discussion of our failing president. My civic values and religious beliefs were a daily source of ridicule and fair game for the most outrageous comments. Formal complaints utlimately changed nothing. Yes two managers were transferred without reprimand or demotion. But the new manager was even more blatant in his remarks. Thus giving the go ahead for others, including employees. Managers refusing to acknowledge you in a meeting or on the sales floor or in the morning was common. Signals were clear who was "in" and who was "out" and to complain was to be laughed at openly.

This is what NOW and the ACLU and the 21st century civil rights establishment have created and it is virtually invisible. In law school we would have called that intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the professors and students would have sided with management.

Liquidation at Borders only intensified the daily hostility.

The real problem here is that Republicans are no more inclined to acknowledge this than the Extreme Left Democratic Party.

I don't agree that Obama won because he is black. That is a factor, but not the factor. What was more important was the perfect political storm. In 2008, no Republican was going to win. Also, Obama was smart enough to make himself totally nebulous. What is more nebulous than his own slogan -- hope and change?

The 2008 election was very similar to the 1996 election, where was race was not a factor. And the 2012 election will be similar to the 1980 election, provided that we can nominate someone remotely decent as a national candidate.

He could use his Executive powers in some instances, but then the right will yell it's unconstitutional. If he has to contend with a Republican House and Senate, nothing will happen the next four years. The country will be screwed.

He could use his Executive powers in some instances, but then the right will yell it's unconstitutional. If he has to contend with a Republican House and Senate, nothing will happen the next four years. The country will be screwed.

No, the best thing that could happen is for "nothing to happen the next four years."

Is there any reason to continue reading newspapers or watching television news?

I fully stopped about 3 years ago. What I get secondhand from Althouse confirms my decision to forego these dull repetitive mimeographs. Nothing true can be said, nothing vital can be learned. All is for The Party, nothing outside of The Party.

Apparently plenty of people continue to read them, for reasons I cannot fathom. A murmuration of opinions is but a pale imitator of starlings.

RegulationsYou linked The Heritage Foundations from last year. While Bloomberg this year writes:

Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

Anti- immigrationWhy must the only issue be a fence? Obama has done something far more effective and that is penalize businesses who hire illegal immigrants. He has also doubled the humber of deportations. Yes, doubled.

Social SecurityA liberal president would never even consider putting Social Security on the table. Don't be so sure he has reneged.

TaxesSure, Obama wants to bring the capital gains tax up to where it was in the Clinton era. Which was lower than it was under any other president until Bush. Hardly liberal. More like status quo. Again, Obama the moderate.

Allie--as I have said elsewhere, a veto proof republican congress is a good solution in this sense: it is a very effective check on an executive not willing to listen to what, I believe, the American people are interested in.

Gridlock, it seems to me, is a very effective device for checking an out of control executive or an out of control legislative branch.

Bender - The Romney camp has long been in the business of planting smears. The thing is -- Cain is fool enough to still want to buddy up to Romney and trash Perry instead

Romney camp is pretty clean. As for Cain and Romney respecting one another as men and business leaders - they do. As expected. Romney may well want to have Cain in his Administration. (Just not as VP, Herman's age, health, and knowledge holes make that a hard thing to see)Romney also might give Sarah Palin a rehab role as a cabinet officer or some other important position where she could show that she is capable - to many skeptics. Palin got a raw deal and was burned by being put into a VP slot she wasn't ready for, in a confused campaign that helped make her look bad.

While Perry is a little dumb and best left in Texas, Santorum and Bachmann a little unsavory and hardcore idealogues...I'd look for Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour and Tom Pawlenty, perhaps Bobby Jindal to get offers of important spots. If, Romney gets the nomination and wins, of course.

What's the deal with Herman Cain? There are at least two settlements because of charges of sexual harassment against him and a third woman has now come forward to state that she too was sexually harassed by Cain. I thought Cain was a good Christian which he claimed at the Value Voters Conference last month.

According to the words of Christ as written in Matthew 5:27-28: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Given those words of Christ, I would say that Cain has committed adultery.

I guess I can understand Limbaugh supporting Cain because I'm sure Limbaugh has committed adultery between his four marriages, but I don't understand why so many Family Values Republicans are still supporting Cain? Does this mean that Republicans are actually OK with Clinton's infidelities as well?

Seven - So nobody here thinks Cain will be the nominee? Nobody wants him to be the nominee? All of the comments on a daily basis, relating to everything that comes out of his mouth doesn't really have any relationship to any of that?

Battling with leftist nitwits gets tiring after awhile. How many different ways can I explain your disgusting authoritarian tendencies to you? How many times can I explain that a politician in a democratic constitutional regime cannot foist his will on an unwilling people.

Love -- Find the comment in this thread saying that Cain will be -- or even should be -- the nominee.

Also, tell us again about how a $15 trillion debt and an unemployment rate of nine percent is going to allow Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid to continue in their current forms. Don't forget the part about how those things are taxed via wages. And don't forget the part about how 2.2 children will never support an aging population of generations that had many more than 2.2 children.

Humor me, dude. Please. Don't just make conclusionary statements, either. Really tell us everything you know. Start at the beginning.

I thought Bill Clinton was a good Christian. I thought Jesse Jackson was a good Christian. I thought Ted Kennedy was a good Christian.

According to the words of Christ as written in Matthew 5:27-28: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Love: re veto proof congresses: Mr Bush IIRC never vetoed any legislation, and again IIRC he never had a 60 seat republican senate during his first term. It does look like Mr Obama might be looking at a solidly republican house and close to a sixty seat republican senate given the number of vulnerable dem incumbents.

I take back what I said about you being an ass clown. You are actually a twat.

Still waiting on all the posts about how Cain will be the nominee and the explanation about solvency in light of a $15 trillion debt. Let me guess: tax the rich! Tax the corporations! Right? That always works, especially when you must reduce unemployment before you can do anything else.

The woman [and two other witnesses] alleged that Cain made a proposition - after they had all been drinking - that she leave with him. She said no. She made allegations and then felt hostility in the workplace afterwards.

What is so hard to understand about that?

What's so hard to understand is where you came up with the two witnesses. The woman alleges that there were other people present at the incident. The times talked to two people who were familiar with the woman's complaint. But nowhere does the linked article claim that anyone, at any time claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The woman [and two other witnesses] alleged that Cain made a proposition - after they had all been drinking - that she leave with him. She said no.

First of all 3 women heard Cain ask one of them if she wanted to leave with him. Yeah, that's pretty hostile and harassing. Can you 'feel' the harassment there?

She made allegations and then felt hostility in the workplace afterwards.

She makes an allegation, not a criminal allegation, but an accusation against Cain and the felt hostility afterward in the work place. Hmmm, I wonder if she was expecting a ticker tape parade and balloon animals to be made in her visage at the idea too? You don't think people would be a little pissed about something like that?

Matt, you child molested me, so now you are going to have to defend yourself. Then your reaction is either going to be one of laughing it off as the suggestion of a crank or get pissed that your name is being besmirched by what you would consider to be a completely baseless lie regardless of who else was there to 'witness' it.

furthermore I'll even go one better. They were drinking outside of the company right? It wasn't a company event right? They weren't in the NRA facilities right? It was private adults in a semi-private setting right? Also, the hostility towards her came after she accused him, but was that hostility coming from Cain or from people who worked with him and knew him and were loyal to him? Seeing the picture?

In an interview, Thomas A. Kershaw, who served as chairman of the board of the association in 1997 and 1998, said that he was not aware of any allegations against Mr. Cain. But he said his sense of humor left room for misinterpretation. “Herman is kind of a kidder, kind of a jokester, particularly when he’s in a relaxed situation,” he said. “I think some people misunderstood what he was saying or what his intent was.”

He added, “I know he’s just a great guy and a wonderful motivator and so forth. I just can’t figure this out.”

Same events different interpretations perhaps? But because she was 'uncomfortable' that's what matters right?

RegulationsYou linked The Heritage Foundations from last year. While Bloomberg this year writes:

Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

From the Puffington piece Matt is using - "Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis".

4.7% - WOW!

Anti- immigration Why must the only issue be a fence? Obama has done something far more effective and that is penalize businesses who hire illegal immigrants. He has also doubled the humber of deportations. Yes, doubled.

After he didn't get amnesty or the DREAM Act passed. Oh, and he's cutting back on deportations, too, after his Hispanic approval started tanking.

Social SecurityA liberal president would never even consider putting Social Security on the table. Don't be so sure he has reneged.

An incompetent, narcissistic POTUS who thought he was going to be cute and wheedle the Republicans into a position where they could be accused of wanting to throw Grandma off a cliff definitely would.

TaxesSure, Obama wants to bring the capital gains tax up to where it was in the Clinton era. Which was lower than it was under any other president until Bush. Hardly liberal. More like status quo.

1) I don't have deep enough pockets to have to worry about protecting them.2) As far as I know, we have never been in together in a situation where my action could be mischaracterized as harrassment.3) You are not an employee of mine, so I don't have to find a way to make you go away without fear of a wrongful termination lawsuit.

I was in a car accident a few years ago. First car rear-ended second car causing it to rear-end me. The police report said that car one was at fault. My lawyer and my insurance company said that car one was at fault. The driver of car two and her lawyer and her insurance company said that car one was at fault.

Car two drive sued car one driver for medical expenses, pain, and suffering, etc. They also named me as a defendant, on the off chance that a jury somehow decided that I was in some way at fault.

After months of meeting with my lawyer, filling out questionnaires, sitting for a deposition, etc, my insurance company settled our part of the suit for almost $1000, which the lawyer call 'nuisance value'.

So trust me, a settlement indicates that a lawsuit was threatened. Nothing more.

But what about the red flags that Herman Cain has caused with his "I forgot", never knew about the settlement, all I said was that she was the same size as my wife...the trust is not there for me anymore. It is a crying shame...

wow Byro-"Love" having a bad day at the Sac t-shirt stand--so time to put on yr dress and the liberal-housewife schtick and entertain the Smurfhouse, eh hayseed. Just stick with your Mein Kampf, Book of Mormon, and Ayn Rand-books like the rest of the schmucks here.

You mean like continue the BushCo tax cuts for the wealthy, hire Bush people (Gates), conservatives like Hillary, work with Bush's man Paulsen on the TARP, hire Goldman Sachs people, increase the DoD budget?? yes Obama the centrist's continuation of Bush Admin policies has hardly been better than BushCo itself (though a lower body count). Stick to the ho-roscopes, Nixon-queen.

If you have held any position of responsibility in government or business in the last twenty years, you know that sexual harassment means that a woman does not like you or wants to make some money off of you. Enough people have been through this meat grinder—or watched someone else go through it—to know what's going on. I don't think this will hurt Cain with the public.